Hot Topics:

Libertarian government? It's not as much anarchy as one might think

By Rahn Forney

rahnforney@ldnews.com @rahnbforney on Twitter

Updated:
02/19/2014 10:36:39 AM EST

Critics of libertarian thinking conflate the philosophy with that of anarchy. The image these ad hominem attackers would cultivate is that of a wild-eyed man with a shotgun in one hand and something large and on fire in the other, screaming at everyone to get off his lawn, or else.

First, who's been spying on me? No! No.

And again, no. Libertarian philosophy is not anarchy. Anarchy is not a rational system. It devolves into law-of-the-jungle survivalism. The strongest, the best-armed, the most charismatic, lead and dominate. That's nearly as anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, as one can get. It is not libertarian.

Another criticism I've seen recently in print is that libertarianism, for all its philosophizing, has never been provided the opportunity to actually govern a sovereign nation. It looks like something on paper, but where's the real-world evidence that it can work?

We should have had the opportunity. We had it within our grasp in 1776; in 1788, with the ratification of a titanic, though still flawed, Constitution. We had it, and it slipped away from us.

Today, we have a burgeoning cornucopia of government alphabet-soup acronyms regulating us beyond our ability to comprehend. Forget following the rules. We aren't. We can't. And no one — no one — knows them all.

Advertisement

We live our lives hoping that we don't get noticed by any in authority with an axe to grind or an agenda to forward, at which time we discover, to our detriment, how little freedom we actually have. But living in the hopes that one does not get noticed by the system is not living in freedom. It is oppression.

So, what do we want, we within the libertarian fold, if not necessarily within its official political sphere? How do we fix this? What's the plan? Give us the details so we can call you names.

Call me all the names you like. If your focus is on the messenger and not on the message, you've accomplished nothing. Yes, there is a plan.

Here's a shock: The plan might not greatly diminish the size of government. Though there is always talk of "smaller government," what is truly necessary is government that recognizes its proper place and apt purpose. That place, and that purpose, is solely the protection of individual rights. Government needs to be the size it must be to fulfill that mission, and not one pen, paper clip or penny more.

You ready for this?

The branches of government would remain. Virtually all regulatory agencies, from the Department of Energy to the IRS, would disappear. They aren't necessary. They aren't functional for the protection of individual rights. Their creation was a terrible error by those who thought they were doing good and instead paved the road to hell with their good intentions, bringing us to the oppression noted above. Just because the oppression doesn't — yet — involve gulags and executions doesn't mean our limited rights don't qualify as such. Other places have risen to the level of atrocity; we might still be able to nip that in the bud here.

Remember: Libertarian government is not anarchy. There must be systems of governance in place.

There are three key parts of that governance at the federal level.

First, there is the military. It's no use building a system of government that can be torn down by enemies from without. Military spending, in a libertarian system, might be no less than it is now; though it might be, given that the mission would focus far more on securing Americans than projecting power hither and yon around a globe that has so radically remade itself since the Cold War necessitated such ventures.

Second, there is law enforcement. That might sound odd coming from someone who has ripped overbearing police tactics time and again.

But law enforcement is necessary — law is necessary. But enforcement would return to a mission of serving and protecting the public. The obscenity of traffic checkpoints would disappear; the arming of police departments like small, military armored units would end. Prosecution of victimless crimes, wherein the pursuit of an activity can do no more harm than to the individual making a choice to pursue a given behavior, would disappear. Checkpoints? Hell, no, not for any purpose.

Driving under the influence? Still a crime. Sexual predation? Oh, so very much still a crime. Burglary, theft, robbery, higher-level instances of violence? All still crimes, because all of those behaviors infringe, directly or indirectly, upon the rights of others. Such behavior is not necessarily punishable, or even noted, in an anarchic state. For libertarians, the behaviors are rationally punishable. And a system must exist to do so.

Military and police presence aren't hard to fathom. It's the third part of a wholly remade government that is most difficult to envision.

Our court system, at all levels, would see a radical increase. Indeed, it is the judicial branch that would be called into service much more directly, much more immediately and much more often in a minimalist government as described.

That's because it would act, under the rule of law, to adjudicate matters where two individuals both believe that their rights are being infringed.

Libertarianism is not utopian any more than it is anarchic. Recognizing that two rational individuals can hold different views on the prosecution of their rights, it is up to the courts, then, to render a decision for the disagreeing parties.

That mechanism utterly eliminates the need for regulatory agencies outside the judiciary. E-lim-i-nates.

Some West Virginia company befouls the water supply? They face court for infringing on the rights of individuals to clean resources. (Recall that clean air and water are rights written into the Pennsylvania Constitution. I'm not sure about West Virginia's government mechanisms.)

Can it be done? It sounds like a vast amount of work for the judiciary. As it exists now, it would be far beyond overwhelming. Grown to the size it needs to be to support its citizenry and defend their rights, the judiciary would be fulfilling its true — and only — mission.

Two other points: First, a remade judiciary would provide a reasonably level playing field. Any aggrieved party would have access to counsel, without cost or at a bearable price. It's more important to get the law right than to allow those with the most money to dictate terms. Yes, those with the resources could retain additional services, but no one would need to go into a gunfight armed with a knife. And yes, there'd have to be taxes to pay for it.

Second, the decisions set forth in rights cases — and almost all cases would be rights cases — would be precedent-setting at a government level equal to that of the court. State courts would set precedents for state cases; federal courts would set precedents nationally. National cases could trump state rulings, but that, too, would have to be adjudicated to meet the requirements of the state-powers portion of the 10th Amendment. We're not ignoring the Constitution here in libertarian land.

These precedents would be codified not into regulations but actual, functional, (hopefully) rational legal definitions that could then be applied equally to any other cases found to be their equivalents.

What about state-level government? Municipalities?

States would have police and court responsibilities; so would municipalities. There would also be low-level courts whose purpose, other than hearing criminal cases, would be to determine, from existing higher-level case law, local rights disagreements. It would eliminate some burden from state-level courts, though those involved could always choose to bump their case up to the next level of the judiciary, much as our system now works.

Infrastructure and public works could also remain in state and local hands, and education would return to them. The days of federal definitions of what appropriate knowledge is for kids in Jonestown would go the way of the dodo, so long as the concept on individual rights based on Constitutional requirements are maintained.

The system does not eliminate all taxes. There are still mechanisms that require public support. But that support likely would be less and would be determined more fairly, at all levels of government than the manure rainbow of systems now dunning us for cash we ought not need to spend on government.

Perfect? No system was, is or can be. Functional? No less so than what's currently "functioning" here in this country. Of that, I am unequivocally convinced.

Making anything like this happens requires the sustained efforts not of dozens, or hundreds, or thousands — but millions, in concert, demanding that we (and we are supposed to be the government) do things better; that we insure the rights of the individual as our government was originally intended. Anything else is unacceptable — and unecessary.

ODESSA, Texas (AP) — A West Texas man has been charged with impersonating an officer by using sirens and flashing lights to skip to the head of the drive-thru line at a fast-food restaurant. Full Story

Sufjan Stevens, "Carrie & Lowell" (Asthmatic Kitty) Plucked strings and pulsing keyboards dominate the distinctive arrangements on Sufjan Stevens' latest album, and in the absence of a rhythm section, they serve to keep time. Full Story